WHOSE VOICES WERE LOUDEST?

Parties and Candidates Outspent Non-Party Groups in Almost Every Close House Race in 2014; Non-Party Groups Were More Important in the Senate

Follow CFI on Twitter:

Additional tables listed at the end

Independent spending was important in the elections of 2014 but the reality does not yet match the buildup. There has been a concern among those who follow money in politics that the surge in independent spending since the 2010 Citizens United decision has taken the election dialogue away from the candidates and political parties. That may be true in a few races now. There may be more in the future. But for the present, a new analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) shows that the candidates and political parties were still the dominant financial voices in most of the competitive House and Senate election campaigns of 2014.

Of course, this does not begin to address all of the relevant policy questions about independent spending. There is still plenty of reason to ask about mega-donors, donor disclosure, single-candidate PACs, coordination, the role of the parties, and the voices of average citizens. But the finding does clear away one piece of the underbrush.

ANALYSIS

CFI looked at every House and Senate race in which either the incumbent lost or the winner earned less than 55% of the top two candidates’ vote. Nine Senate races and forty-six House races fit the description. The following two tables summarize the main findings. The more detailed tables (attached) list each candidate individually and offer more complete summaries.

Because one of the relevant policy questions has been whether the parties and candidates are drowned out by the interest groups, the summary tables separate the party and non-party organizations instead of lumping them together as “outside spending”. The first table presents the average amount raised by candidates in competitive races along with the expenditures by party and non-party organizations. Super PACs associated with the party leaders (such as the Senate and House Majority PACs) were counted among the non-party organizations in both tables, thus understating the role of the party and party networks.

CANDIDATES, PARTIES AND GROUPS IN RACES DECIDED BY 55% OR LESS* OR IN WHICH THE INCUMBENT LOST

The first table shows that in a typical competitive House race, the candidate and the party each raised and spent more than the non-party organizations. The situation was different in the Senate, where non-party groups spent two and three times as much as the party committees.

Averages can be misleading, of course. Some races were more expensive than others. In North Carolina, which held the country’s first $100 million Senate race, non-party organizations accounted for $53 million, compared to $30 million by the candidates and $19 million by the parties. Colorado had $50 million in non-party spending, $26 million by the candidates and $14 million by the parties. In contrast, the candidates outweighed both the party and non-party organizations in Georgia.

Because the variation across races can affect averages, the second table weighs each race equally, presenting the number in which the candidates or parties spent more than the non-party organizations. Because the fortunes of candidates and parties intertwine, the table also has a column in which the assets of the candidates and parties are combined and compared to the non-party groups.

COMPARING CANDIDATE, PARTY AND NON-PARTY SPENDING, IN COMPETITIVE HOUSE AND SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, 2014

This table shows that even in the Senate, sixty percent of the races were ones in which the candidates and parties together outweighed the non-party groups. However, this was not the same for both parties. Eight of the Democratic candidates were able to combine with their parties to outweigh the non-party groups. But this held true for only one-third of the Republicans. The National Republican Senatorial Committee raised substantially less money in 2014 than its Democratic counterpart.

In the House, 87% of the candidates in close races raised more by themselves than the non-party groups spent. In 57% of the campaigns, the parties by themselves outweighed the non-party groups. And in 97% of the campaigns, the candidates and parties together outweighed the non-party spending.

Some of the difference between the House and Senate may be fleeting. Non-party organizations shifted money from the House to the Senate in 2014, where majority control of the chamber was at stake. This shift had the effect of strengthening the proportional role of candidates and parties in the House. In future years, this may not apply. For these and other reasons, the role of non-party groups may someday match the fear that they will dominate the campaign dialogue. They already come close in a few races, but the evidence shows that this is more generally a concern about the future than a description of what now exists.

TABLES:

Table 1: List of 2014 House General Election Races Ranked by Total Amount of Independent Spending

Table 2: List of 2014 Senate General Election Races Ranked by Total Amount of Independent Spending

The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute. Statements of the Campaign Finance Institute and its Task Forces do not necessarily reflect the views of CFI's Trustees or financial supporters.